"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/933996/download
BIA headnote:
“The crime of mayhem in violation of section 203 of the California Penal Code, which requires a malicious act that results in great bodily injury to another person, necessarily involves the use of violent force and is therefore categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2012).”
PANEL: JUDGES PAULEY, MALPHRUS, MULLAINE
Decision by Judge Malphrus
*************************************
PWS
01/31/17
Nolan concludes:
“President Trump deserves credit for trying to carry out his campaign promises on interior immigration enforcement, but it is a tall order. It always was.”
****************************************
PWS
01/28/17
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-us-immigration-courts-deportations/
AIMEE PICCHI/MONEYWATCH writes:
“President Donald Trump is taking what he portrays as a hard-nosed approach to undocumented immigrants, issuing an order this week to boost the number of U.S. border patrol agents and to build detention centers.
But what happens when a federal push to ramp up arrests and deportations hits a severely backlogged federal court system?
“It’s a recipe for a due process disaster,” said Omar Jadwat, an attorney and director of the Immigrant Rights Project at the ACLU. Already, he pointed out, there are “large, large numbers of caseloads” in immigration court, and Mr. Trump’s directives threaten to greatly increase the number of people caught in the system, he said.
Just how backlogged is the system for adjudicating deportations and related legal matters? America’s immigration courts are now handling a record-breaking level of cases, with more than 533,000 cases currently pending, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC, a data gathering site that tracks the federal government’s enforcement activities. That figure is more than double the number when Mr. Obama took office in 2009.
As a result, immigrants awaiting their day in court face an average wait time of 678 days, or close to two years.
Immigrant rights advocates say the backlog is likely to worsen, citing Mr. Trump’s order on Wednesday to hire 5,000 additional border patrol agents while also enacting a freeze on government hiring. Whether the U.S. Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, will be able to add judges given the hiring freeze isn’t clear.
A spokeswoman from the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review said the agency is awaiting “further guidance” regarding the hiring freeze from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. In the meantime, she said, the agency “will continue, without pause, to protect the nation with the available resources it has today.”
*****************************************
There is video to go with the complete story at the link.
The situation is likely to get much worse in the U.S. Immigration Courts. Obviously, due process is not going to be a high priority for this Administration. And, while the Executive Orders can be read to give Attorney General Jeff Sessions authority to continue hiring Immigration Judges, filling the 75 or so currently vacant positions won’t begin to address the Immigration Courts’ workload problems.
Then, there are the questions of space and support staff. One of the reasons more vacancies haven’t been filled to date is that many Immigration Courts (for example, the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, VA) have simply run out of space for additional judges and staff.
The parent agency of the Immigration Courts, “EOIR,” is counting on being allowed to continue with expansion plans currently underway. But, even if Attorney General Sessions goes forward with those plans, that space won’t be ready until later in 2017, and that’s highly optimistic.
This does not seem like an Administration that will be willing to wait for the current lengthy highly bureaucratic hiring system to operate or for new Immigration Judges to be trained and “brought up to speed.” So various “gimmicks” to speed hiring, truncate training, and push the Administration’s “priority cases” — likely to be hundreds of thousands of additional cases — through the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals at breakneck speed.
Consequently, the whole “due process mess” eventually is likely to be thrown into the U.S. Courts of Appeals where “final orders of removal” are reviewed by Article III Judges with lifetime tenure, rather than by administrative judges appointed and supervised by the Attorney General.
PWS
01/28/17
My good friend and former BIA colleague, Hon. Lory Rosenberg writes:
“I’m proud to announce that my former BIA colleague, Immigration Judge Paul W. Schmidt (Ret.) will join us as a special guest for the very first meeting of IDEAS First 100 Days Mastermind, at 4PM ET next Tuesday, January 31st!
I’ve invited Judge Schmidt to freely share his thoughts and ideas with us, as well as to participate fully in our mastermind discussion.
As we dig through the existing labrynthine immigration statute – the one with the unfixed ’96 — and as we confront the ill-advised, anti-immigrant Executive Orders just signed by President Trump – the ones that abrogate our refugee protection obligations – l know Judge Schmidt’s wisdom and reflections will provide priceless inspiration and guidance.”
************************************
Thanks for the kind words, Lory! The feeling is mutual. For more information on the seminar, go on over to Lory’s Mastermind website at:
http://www.loryrosenberg.com/First100days
PWS
01/28/17
Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-26
AMICUS INVITATION (ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT A NARCOTIC DRUG FOR SALE), DUE FEBRUARY 27, 2017
JANUARY 26, 2017
The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue:
ISSUES PRESENTED:
Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae (“Request to Appear”) pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix B (Directory), and Appendix F (Sample Cover Page) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-26. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board Practice Manual.
Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-26. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider a brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.
Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case may be available. Please contact the Amicus Clerk by phone or mail (see contact information below) for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear and brief.
Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 30 double-spaced pages. 1
Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear and brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by February 27, 2017. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear and brief are disfavored. The briefs or extension request must be RECEIVED at the Board on or before the due date. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.
Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear and brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.
Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear and brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae).
Notice: A Request to Appear may be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(f). A Request to Appear filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.
Attribution: Should the Board decide to publish a decision, the Board may, at its discretion, name up to three attorneys or representatives. If you wish a different set of three names or you have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear and brief.
Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:
To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:
Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041 703-605-1007
Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear and amicus brief.
******************************
Once again, kudos and thanks to the BIA for asking for public input on these “sure to be precedent” issues!
PWS
01/27/17
https://qz.com/895624/how-much-crime-is-committed-by-immigrants/
Annalisa Merelli writes in Quartz:
“In his Jan. 25 executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” [P]resident Donald Trump announced that the Secretary of Homeland Security will publish, among other things, a weekly list of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.
This might suggest that people in the US illegally commit an unusually large number of crimes. There isn’t a register of crimes committed by this group of people, so it’s hard to show whether or not that’s the case. However, two data points suggest this group commits fewer crimes than people in the country legally. They are pointed out in a 2015 special report from the American Immigration Council.”
***************************************
PWS
01/26/17
Trump’s Executive Orders on Immigration
Yesterday, January 25, 2017, President Trump signed two Executive Orders on immigration, demonstrating that he will take a hard-line, no compromise, and enforcement only approach to handling our nation’s already broken immigration system. Through these Orders, the Trump Administration communicated the following priorities:
Border Wall: The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must immediately begin planning, designing, and constructing a physical wall along the nearly 2000-mile southern border. The U.S. (not Mexico) will pay for this wall at an estimated price tag of $6.5 million per mile. This is an unconscionable expenditure at a time when statistics show that the southern border is more secure than ever and illegal border crossings are at a 40-year low!
Increased Detention of Asylum Seekers and immigrants at the southern border: DHS is authorized to hire an additional 5000 Border Patrol Agents and build new detention facilities. DHS will no longer release asylum seekers on bond or electronic monitoring; instead, asylum-seekers will remain in jail while their cases are pending, and will have to gather evidence, prepare legal arguments, and present their cases while in detention. Not only will this be expensive ($125 per adult per day, or in the case of family detention, $343 per person per day), but it is inhumane. An estimated 88% of Central American women, children, and families crossing the Southern border have valid asylum claims. Subjecting them to prolonged detention further traumatizes them and violates this country’s proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution.
Revised Removal Priorities: DHS is authorized to hire up to 10,000 additional immigration officers who will prioritize for removal individuals convicted of any criminal offense whatsoever, no matter how minor or insignificant. They will also prioritize for removal individuals who have open charges pending against them, even if they have not been found guilty by a judge or jury, and individuals who have never been charged or convicted of a crime, but whom an immigration officer believes may have committed a criminal act or may otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. This vague and overbroad policy opens the door for rampant constitutional and civil rights violations. It also has the potential to expose both federal and deputized state and local agencies to frequent and protracted litigation.
Relatedly, the President has also Deputized State and Local Law Enforcement Officials to act as immigrant agents in apprehending, investigating, and detaining immigrants. Local jurisdictions currently have no legal obligation to assist with civil immigration enforcement, as immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government alone. Forcing local police to act as immigration agents strains their already limited resources and reduces their ability to respond to and investigate crime. Importantly, this policy also deters immigrants who are victims of crime from coming forward and reporting criminal activity. By alienating our immigrant neighbors and over-taxing local police, this policy will make our communities even less safe.
Sanctuary Cities: President Trump pledges to end “sanctuary cities” (jurisdictions which protect the identity of non-criminal immigrant members of the community by refusing to share information about those individuals with federal immigration authorities). He has promised to end “sanctuary cities” by denying them Federal grants and funding. This move, too, jeopardizes the safety of all Americans. It undermines community policing efforts that encourage everyone to work with the police to prevent and solve crime. When immigrants distrust and fear local law enforcement, victims and key witnesses refuse to come forward out of fear of deportation.
Without a doubt, the impact of these directives will be substantial. Grossman Law is concerned that the President’s priorities skirt the long-established due process rights of all individuals, including immigrants, within our borders. Additionally, the attack on “sanctuary cities” will have the negative impact of further dividing our nation and the potential of increasing crime in our largest cities. Our nation’s history, prosperity and growth has been closely aligned with the prosperity and growth of immigrants. The executive orders, in large part, will work to destroy this proud history, and will have the consequence of instilling fear, rather than hope, into the hearts of deserving immigrants. This is “un-American” and misguided policy. Grossman Law will closely monitor the implementation of these Orders and will provide ongoing advice and counsel to our clients, and will continue organizing to ensure the protection of rights for all.
Grossman Law, LLC
4922 Fairmont Avenue, Suite 200
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Phone: (240) 403-0913
Website: www.GrossmanLawLLC.com
Like us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView on Instagram
Find us on Google+Find us on Yelp
Grossman Law, LLC, 4922 Fairmont Ave., Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20814
SafeUnsubscribe™ jennings12@aol.com
Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by team@grossmanlawllc.com in collaboration with
Constant Contact
Try it free today
************************
PWS
01/26/17
*****************************
Wow! Incredibly broad! Probably easier to determine what isn’t a priority (offhand, I’d say something like “undocumented migrants already in the United States who have lived lives completely free from any run-ins with the law” — and, there are definitely quite a few of those) than what is!
Unlike the Border Enforcement Executive Order, which specifically requires detention of arriving migrants with very narrow, case-by-case, exceptions, this order does not specifically direct immigration officials to detain all interior removal “priorities.” But, it certainly is implicit in the President’s Order that all of the stated removal priorities “present a significant threat to national security and public safety.” That’s probably going to result in at least a de facto “presumption of detention” in all priority cases. And, regulations, precedents, or other directives from the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General could specifically establish such a presumption.
So, everyone arriving at the border without documentation is a priority and will be thrown in detention. And, everyone in the interior who is undocumented and has ever been arrested, charged, or committed any crime, no matter how minor, and regardless of whether convicted, will also be prioritized, and most of them will be thrown in detention.
Consequently, almost everybody in Immigration Court will be a “Detained Priority” or an “Enforcement Priority” of some type. That’s going to mean yet another massive re-shuffling of dockets.
And, since almost everyone will be detained, there will be even more excruciating pressure on already stressed and overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Judges to “move” these cases, without much regard to due process, because detention will be costing a fortune (and the Supremes well might place a limit on the duration of “pre-hearing” detention).
In that case, why would anybody interested in being a “real” judge who isn’t already in the system and not eligible to retire, want the Immigration Judge’s job? Yes, I’m sure that there will be many lawyers out there who need jobs and will apply. But, they are likely to be those who see being a “judge” in the Executive Branch under such circumstances as a law enforcement position, rather than a chance to be an impartial “umpire,” scholar, or dispenser of balanced and deliberative due process.
Perhaps, the initiative will be a huge enforcement success; the Article III Courts will sign on and basically dispense with any semblance of “normal” due process for migrants, thus allowing them essentially to be railroaded out of the U.S. Obviously, that’s what the Administration is counting on.
Alternatively, however, the Article III Courts might “dig in” and insist on scrupulously fair hearings, thereby essentially grinding all enforcement to a halt and forcing massive “re-dos” of already “expedited” and “prioritized” cases. In that event, the initiative will turn out to be a colossal and incredibly expensive failure.
I suspect that the Supremes will have to sort this out in the fairly near future. In the past, a Supreme Court with the late Justice Antonin Scalia sitting frequently vindicated the rights of migrants against attempted Government overreaching by Administrations of both parties. So, it’s by no means a “given” that a Supreme Court with a disciple of Justice Scalia as the new Justice would necessarily endorse all aspects of the President’s enforcement initiatives. We’ll just have to wait and see.
And, surprisingly, particularly to those who think that this is a “great” idea, the answer may affect the due process rights of more than just migrants. You never know when you yourself might be in need of a little due process. It often happens to those who least expect it.
Meanwhile, “back at the ranch,” not only is it a great time not to be a refugee, but it’s a really great time to be retired from the USG (and, the U.S. Immigration Court, in particular).
PWS
01/25/17
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-supreme-court-deport-burglars-20170117-story.html
David G. Savage writes in the L.A. Times:
“The law in this area is not entirely clear. Beginning in 1988, Congress ordered deportation for noncitizens who are convicted of an “aggravated felony,” and it cited specific examples such as murder and rape. Later the law was expanded to include a general category of “crimes of violence.” This was defined to include offenses that involve a use of physical force or a “substantial risk” that force would be used.
Judges have been divided as to what crimes call for deportation. Looming over Tuesday’s argument was an opinion written two years ago by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. He spoke for an 8-to-1 majority in striking down part of a federal law known as the Armed Career Criminal Act. It called for extra years in prison for people convicted of more than one violent felony.
In that case, the extra prison term was triggered by the defendant’s possession of a shotgun. In frustration, Scalia and his colleagues said the law was unconstitutionally vague because they could not decide whether gun possession is itself evidence of a violent crime.
“You could say the exact same thing about burglary,” Justice Elena Kagan said Tuesday. A midday burglary of a home could result in violence, she said, but perhaps not if it were an empty garage or an abandoned house. “So it seems like we’re replicating the same kind of confusion,” she said.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said judges have no way to decide which crimes typically or usually involve violence. “We’re just left guessing,” he said, suggesting a better approach would be “look at what the person did.”
But Deputy Solicitor Gen. Edwin Kneedler said a home burglary poses a risk of violence. And he said the court should defer to the government on matters of immigration. The law, he said, calls for a “broad delegation” of authority to executive officials.
This is the argument government lawyers made in defense of President Obama’s use of executive authority to try to shield millions of immigrants from deportation. It is also the argument that would call for upholding an aggressive deportation policy if pursued by the Trump administration.”
*************************
Interesting juxtaposition here! The key opinion relied on by the immigrant is an 8-1 decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), written by conservative judicial icon Justice Antonin Scalia in which he ripped apart on constitutional vagueness grounds a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act that is virtually identical to the deportation statute.
The Obama Administration reacted by vigorously reasserting in the lower courts and the Immigration Courts its right to ignore Justice Scalia’s reasoning in the civil deportation context and continue to deport individuals convicted of residential burglary.
But, liberal judicial icon Judge Stephen Reinhardt and one of his colleagues on the Ninth Court of Appeals seized on Scalia’s opinion and applied it to the immigration law to block such deportations. The Seventh Circuit followed suit, but the Fifth Circuit did not, thereby setting up a “circuit split” — something that often convinces the Supreme Court to exercise its discretionary authority to intervene by granting a “writ of certiorari.”
The case is Lynch v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 which, as pointed out by David Savage, will soon morph into Sessions v. Dimaya. Stay tuned for the results!
Did you know that: The Government’s lawyer in Dimaya, career Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, a friend and an outstanding public servant, has argued more than 125 U.S. Supreme Court cases during his distinguished Government career, more than any other living lawyer!
Wow! Most lawyers would feel lucky and privileged to argue a single case before the Supreme Court. I know I sure would. Just think of the hours of preparation spent in preparing to argue well over 100 cases!
When I was Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel of the Legacy INS, I used to help the Solicitor General’s Office prepare for oral arguments in immigration cases. So, I know how intensive the preparation process is.
At least once, I was asked to sit with the Deputy SG arguing the case at counsel table in the Court. That was as close as I ever got to appearing before the Court.
I remember one case that I observed — I can’t remember if I was at counsel table or in the audience — was the immigration classic INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) establishing the generous “well-founded fear = reasonable likelihood” standard for asylum, which I ended up having to apply thousands of times as a trial and appellate judge in the Immigration Courts. That day, however, we were on the “losing” side of the argument, having presented the case for a more stringent standard. Nevertheless, I think the Court got it completely right.
The “winning” lawyer before the Court that day was a young immigration attorney from San Francisco, Dana Marks Keener, now known as Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court and the President of the National Association of Immigration Judges. Since then, of course, Dana and I have become judicial colleagues and great friends. I often refer to her as “the founding mother of modern U.S. asylum law.”
Small world.
PWS
01/18/17
Check out this video link from last night’s Full Frontal With Samantha Bee” on TBS:
http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/1/12/14250148/samantha-bee-obama-trump-deportation
**********************************
Yup, that’s right Sam, for years the Obama Administration has been going after foreign nationals with criminal records, even though, as illustrated by the young lady you profiled, some of them are nonviolent, have paid for their crimes, have rehabilitated themselves, and are productive, law-abiding, tax-paying members of their communities — many with U.S. citizen families — by the time ICE Enforcement shows up.
Perhaps realizing that, contrary to campaign rhetoric, President Obama has already implemented a “get tough” immigration enforcement program, Trump spokesman Kris Kobach promises to expand (by Executive Fiat, mind you) the definition of “criminal” to include foreign nationals who have merely been charged or arrested, not necessarily convicted of any crime. Hey, what’s the presumption of innocence anyway? To paraphrase another great American thinker, “If they were’t criminals, they wouldn’t be in court.” Perhaps the next logical step will be anyone who has ever thought of violating the law or watched a TV crime show!
I think it is safe to predict that many of those who would fall within Kobach’s ever-expanding concept of “criminal” will eventually prove not to be removable under the laws of the United States. Even now, that’s the case in a remarkable number of prosecutions brought by the Obama Administration’s ICE (“Immigration and Customs Enforcement”).
That’s why we need a strong, independent, impartial, expert United States Immigration Court (including the “Appellate Division,” the “BIA”) to insure that fairness and constitutional Due Process are always at the forefront and that any Administration’s enforcement initiatives comply with the law. And, any Administration would find that final orders of removal achieved through such a due-process oriented court system would have great credibility (sadly, not necessarily the case now and particularly in the recent past) and would stand up to judicial review by the Federal Courts of Appeals.
Finally, my friend and former colleague Judge Einhorn has proved what I’m finding out — there is lot’s of “life” out here after retiring from the Immigration Bench, and it’s pretty much “all good.” Will SNL be the next stop for Judge Einhorn? Stay tuned!
Go Pack Go!!!!!🏈🏈🏈
PWS
01/15/17
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-immigration-chance-1484266731
“Donald Trump will have a busy first day repealing President Obama’s executive orders, and here’s a suggestion to lighten the work load and win some goodwill in the bargain: Don’t revoke the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration order.
DACA is the 2012 order granting temporary safe harbor for illegal immigrants who arrived as minors with their parents. That order is distinct from the 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) order, which exempts from deportation some four million illegal immigrants.
Mr. Trump should repeal DAPA, a sweeping usurpation of Congress’s power to write immigration laws. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked DAPA at the request of 26 states, and the Supreme Court voted 4-4 to uphold the injunction. DAPA was among Mr. Obama’s most cynical executive actions, at once poisoning the chances for serious immigration reform while trying to pit minorities against Republicans for political purposes.
DACA is also an executive action, but its repeal now would harm innocent men and women. The order is limited to children brought illegally to the U.S. before the age of 16 who are attending school or have graduated, and who have continuously resided in the U.S. since at least 2007. About 741,000 immigrants have applied for DACA’s reprieve, which lets them obtain work permits that must be renewed after two years for a nontrivial fee of $465.
DACA applicants must undergo background checks, and they cannot have a felony or serious misdemeanor record. They can’t collect federal benefits or vote. DACA essentially offers the right to work and pay taxes in the U.S., and many applicants have served in the military. If DACA is repealed, Homeland Security’s tracking will end as tens of thousands slip into the shadows to avoid deportation to “home” countries where they are strangers.
The Fifth Circuit dismissed a legal challenge to DACA by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for lack of standing. We’d prefer if Congress codified DACA, and a bipartisan coalition of Senators wants to do so. This could be included if legislation moves this year to tighten immigration enforcement.
The main issue is fairness, as Mr. Trump has recognized. He told Time magazine in December that these young illegals were “brought here at a very young age. They’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here.” He added that “they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen” and “on a humanitarian basis, it’s a very tough situation.” He’s right, which is why we hope he’s willing to forbear on DACA while a legislative solution can be worked out.
No one doubts Mr. Trump’s resolve to reduce illegal immigration, and repealing DAPA would honor that campaign promise. But minors brought to the U.S. illegally aren’t responsible for that decision. Giving them a deportation reprieve would show that Mr. Trump’s immigration policy is aimed at enforcing the law, not at punishing minorities or any ethnic group. We can’t think of another early decision that would send a comparable message of inclusion and largeness of presidential spirit.”
************************************
I agree on DACA, disagree on DAPA. The reasons for going forward and implementing the DAPA program are almost as strong as for retaining DACA.
DAPA’s proposed beneficiaries — parents of U.S. citizens and green card holders — probably aren’t going to be removed anyway under the DHS priorities as initially described by soon to be DHS Secretary Gen. John Kelly. They need to be taken off overcrowded Immigration Court dockets if the Trump Administration wants to pursue its version of “criminal removal” as a priority (although I note that this is essentially the same priority as the Obama Administration had). Instead of just leaving the DAPA folks “in limbo,” why not get them registered, documented, checked for criminal record, working legally, and make it easier for them to pay taxes, without handing out green cards or any other type of permanent status? It would be good for America.
PWS
01/13/17
Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05
AMICUS INVITATION (MISPRISION OF A FELONY), DUE FEBRUARY 6, 2017
The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue:
ISSUES PRESENTED:
Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae (“Request to Appear”) pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix B (Directory), and Appendix F (Sample Cover Page) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board Practice Manual.
Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider a brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.
Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case may be available. Please contact the Amicus Clerk by phone or mail (see contact information below) for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear and brief.
Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 30 double-spaced pages.
Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear and brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by February 6, 2017. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear and brief are disfavored. The briefs or extension request must be RECEIVED at the Board on or before the due date. It is not sufficient simply
1
to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.
Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear and brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.
Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear and brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae).
Notice: A Request to Appear may be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(f). A Request to Appear filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.
Attribution: Should the Board decide to publish a decision, the Board may, at its discretion, name up to three attorneys or representatives. If you wish a different set of three names or you have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear and brief.
Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:
To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:
Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041 703-605-1007
Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear and amicus briefs.
**********************************
The key case to read is Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2012), where the Ninth Circuit rejected the BIA’s conclusion in Matter of Robles- Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006) that misprision of a felony is “categorically” a “crime involving moral turpitude” for removal purposes.
In simple terms, among other things, the BIA is now considering whether to “blow off” the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in other circuits and adhere to its prior interpretation which the Ninth Circuit found to be wrong and which, of course, is must less favorable to respondents.
So, anybody who thinks that the BIA is about to “bark up the wrong tree” here (and, not for the first time, ignore the well reasoned decision of an Article III Court under the so-called “Chevron doctrine”) better get their group together and get crackin’ on a brief to convince the BIA that the Ninth Circuit got it right.
The deadline is February 6, 2017, (WARNING: The BIA seldom extends amicus deadlines) and everything you need to know about how to file the brief is in the BIA’s notice, reproduced above.
Here are links to Robles-Urrea v. Holder: https://casetext.com/case/roblesurrea-v-holder
and Matter of Robles: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3542.pdf to help you get started.
Good luck!
PWS
01/06/17
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/donald-trump-immigration/index.html
A group of immigration experts on both sides of the issue interviewed by CNN all doubted that the Trump Administration would be able to carry out mass removals on the scale Trump alluded to on the campaign trail. Among the problems: Congressional funding for more enforcement and detention, severely backlogged U.S. Immigration Courts, practical problems of locating and processing undocumented individuals within the United States, and potential large scale resistance by states, cities, counties, and universities to overly aggressive enforcement efforts.
Here’s an excerpt (full article posted above):
“Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center For Immigration Studies, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, said Trump’s campaign pledges to deport millions amounted to an “Archie Bunker moment” that should not have been taken seriously.
“He’s not going to be snapping his fingers and deporting millions of people over night,” said Krikorain, whose group’s motto is “Low-Immigration, pro-immigrant.”
“That’s not realistic,” Krikorian said. “No one thinks that’s going to happen.”
But Krikorian said “it’s very plausible” that Trump could ramp up deportations by 25% or more in 2017 and return to levels seen under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, which he said reached about 400,000 a year when Bush left office.
That, he said, could be done without significant budgetary increases and despite resistance from sanctuary cities.
“I think the other side is making it seem more complicated than it needs to be,” he said.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, agreed that Trump would be able to have meaningful impact during the first year of his presidency, but not to the extent suggested during the campaign.
“On the campaign trail things are not nuanced. They’re black and white,” Yale-Loehr said. “It takes a while to turn the battleship of bureaucracy around.”
PWS
01/04/17
“But as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to take office and promises to swiftly deport two million to three million undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, bipartisan experts say they expect a return of the raids that rounded up thousands of workers at carwashes, meatpacking plants, fruit suppliers and their homes during the Bush years.
“If Trump seriously wants to step up dramatically the number of arrests, detentions and removals, I think he has to do workplace raids,” said Michael J. Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who represents detainees in civil rights cases.
Since the election, Mr. Trump has suggested that he plans to focus on deporting criminals. “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers,” he told CBS News in November. “We’re getting them out of our country.”
But Mr. Trump’s advisers have said that to promptly reach his target number of deportations, the definition of who is a criminal would need to be broadened. In July 2015, the Migration Policy Institute, a bipartisan think tank, estimated that of the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, 820,000 had criminal records — a definition Mr. Obama mostly adhered to during his second term, evicting some 530,000 immigrants convicted of crimes since 2013.
Mr. Trump would need to expand the basket to include immigrants living in the United States illegally who have been charged but not convicted of crimes, those who have overstayed visas, those who have committed minor misdemeanors like traffic infractions, and those suspected of being gang members or drug dealers.
Targeting workers for immigration-related offenses, such as using a forged or stolen Social Security number or driver’s license, produced a significant uptick in deportations under Mr. Bush. But the practice was widely criticized for splitting up families, gutting businesses that relied on immigrant labor and taking aim at people who went to work every day, rather than dangerous criminals.”
****************************
There is no statutory or other widely accepted definition of a “criminal alien.” As shown by this article in the NY Times, it could be narrow — covering only those who are actually removable from the United States by virtue of their crimes — or broad — covering anyone who has ever had contact with the criminal justice system and is potentially removable, regardless of whether there was a conviction or whether the crime itself is the ground for removal. For example, “driving with an expired license” is not a ground for removal. But, an undocumented individual arrested for “driving without a license” could be referred by the state or local authorities to the DHS to be placed in removal proceedings before a U.S. Immigration Judge. If the Immigration Judge finds that such an individual has no legal status in the United States, and that individual cannot establish that she or he is entitled to some type of relief from removal, the Immigration Judge must enter an order of removal, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest or the overall equities of the case.
PWS
01/04/17
“No,” says Professor and Immigration Practitioner Kari Hong of Boston College Law School in this op-ed in the Washington Post:
“If Trump truly wants to focus on drug dealers, terrorists, murderers and rapists, he should call on Congress to restore immigration law’s focus on those whom prosecutors and criminal judges determined were dangerous in the first place — people who were sentenced to five years or more in prison. That’s what the law used to be, before it was changed in 1996 to cover many more crimes.
Instead of penalizing immigrants for minor crimes, immigration law needs to separate contributing immigrants from their non-contributing peers. Those who pay taxes, have children born in the United States, serve in the military, work in jobs American citizens will not take or help those around them need a path to legalization. Those who cause more harm than good should be deported. Restoring proportionality and common sense to immigration law would certainly help make America great again.”
**********************
Go over to ImmigrationProf Blog and the Washington Post at the above link and get the whole story.
PWS
01/04/17